“The world’s foremost climate scientists have delivered a dire warning about the massive risks of tipping points,” said Sarah Smith, Program Director, Super Pollutants at CATF. “The need to cut methane emissions as rapidly as possible has never been more clear.” 

Today, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released its Working Group II report, the latest in a long line of reports that illustrate the urgency of climate action. Working Group I’s contribution ahead of COP26 helped focus world leaders on the issue of methane abatement. It illustrated that reducing methane emissions is the only action we can take now that will significantly reduce the amount of global warming we experience in the next two decades. Working Group II builds on this message by providing detailed insights into the climate tipping points we are rapidly approaching. 

For decades, many climate models predicted that climate change would proceed at a steady rate. However, in the past few years the science has evolved. We now understand that these catastrophic climate events – such as the loss of the Amazon rainforest or the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet – can occur at much lower temperatures than previously assumed. These tipping points would see abrupt releases of large quantities of greenhouse gases back into the atmosphere and speed up sea level rise globally. Any vision of slow and steady adaptation to climate change is impossible in this scenario. 

The human and natural impacts of climate tipping points are detailed at length in the IPCC’s latest report and should be a dire warning to policymakers around the world. 

“The best way to put a handbrake on global warming is by rapidly cutting methane emissions,” said Jonathan Banks, International Director, Super Pollutants at CATF. “What’s hopeful about that is we already have the tools and technology to achieve significant cuts this decade – we simply need the political will to make it happen.” 

During COP26, more than 100 countries committed to the Global Methane Pledge, which aims at a 30% global reduction in methane emissions by 2030. This scheme is spearheaded by the U.S. and the European Union, and new methane legislation is already in motion in both countries. 

Methane is a harmful super pollutant that warms the planet more than 80 times more than carbon dioxide over its first 20 years in the atmosphere. It’s responsible for about half a degree of global warming so far, and its levels are rising fast – the atmospheric growth rate in 2021 was the fastest in years. Due to its short-lived nature, however, there are significant short-term benefits to cutting methane emissions now. In fact, reducing methane pollution is the fastest way to slow global warming and avoid near-term and irreversible impacts such as collapsing glaciers. 

Methane pollution comes from human activities in three broad sectors: fossil fuels, agriculture, and waste. And we have solutions available in all three. Affordable, currently available technologies could stop nearly half of these emissions this decade, enough to avoid 0.3 °C of warming by the 2040s. 

In the case of fossil fuels, we can substantially reduce methane emissions by regularly inspecting oil and gas infrastructure for leaks and super-emitters, eliminating wasteful venting and flaring of gas, and updating outdated equipment at oil and gas facilities that emits methane by design. In the case of agriculture, we can curb emissions with better livestock and manure management practices throughout global meat and dairy production. Waste emissions, such as those from landfills, can be cut by requiring landfills to strictly control releases of methane-rich landfill gas, and by diverting food waste (the source of much of the methane) away from landfills. 

Governments are beginning to put these solutions into place – both at the U.S. state and federal level, and around the world, but broad, ambitious actions are needed to achieve the necessary pace and scale of methane reductions.  

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Governors from four states—New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming—today announced their intent to collaborate on a western inter-state hydrogen hub to compete for new hydrogen infrastructure funding from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). A hydrogen hub from this multi-state collaboration can take advantage of diverse energy resources, national labs, academic institutions, industry, and community stakeholders throughout the region to optimize an application for federal hydrogen hubs funding that covers the full clean hydrogen value chain. Clean Air Task Force (CATF) welcomes the four states’ stated commitment to producing climate-beneficial hydrogen-based fuels in ways that empower and protect frontline communities, minimize pipeline leaks, and address negative air quality impacts.   

“Building out regional, low-carbon hydrogen economies is an essential and potent component of a decarbonizing economy,” said Andrew Place, State Energy and Climate Policy Director for Clean Air Task Force. “This region’s uniquely diverse and interconnected energy resources, existing and potential carbon management assets, and renowned research institutions are powerful drivers for leading success. Within the context of an energy hungry and growing economy, this region is well placed to lead as early adopters of clean hydrogen technologies.” 

A hydrogen hub is a close proximity network of zero-carbon fuels production and end-use demonstrations that supports industry learning at a large scale and achieves net-greenhouse gas emissions reductions and other regional environmental benefits. “CATF strongly supported the creation and authorization of the $8 billion Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub program in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), a wide-reaching bill that will spur the infrastructure development needed for deep decarbonization” said Conrad Schneider, Advocacy Director at Clean Air Task Force. “We hope a western hub can help achieve the goal of demonstrating effective regional hydrogen economies and the production of low-carbon hydrogen,” he added.  

Hallmarks of a successful clean hydrogen hub are likely to include a wide range of potential hydrogen off-takers, strong public engagement, and commitment to delivering near-term environmental benefits. Hubs that use natural gas to make hydrogen should have a robust system for detecting and eliminating methane leaks in the upstream natural gas supply chain and access to high-quality carbon sequestration resources. Hubs that make hydrogen from electricity should have access to a surplus of renewable or nuclear energy.   

Press Contacts: Troy Shaheen, Communications Director, U.S., [email protected], 845-750-1189; and Stuart Ross, Communications Director, [email protected], 914-649-5037. 

About Clean Air Task Force

Clean Air Task Force (CATF) is a global nonprofit organization working to safeguard against the worst impacts of climate change by catalyzing the rapid development and deployment of low-carbon energy and other climate-protecting technologies. With 25 years of internationally recognized expertise on climate policy and a fierce commitment to exploring all potential solutions, CATF is a pragmatic, non-ideological advocacy group with the bold ideas needed to address climate change. CATF has offices in Boston, Washington D.C., and Brussels, with staff working virtually around the world. 

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Matt Bright

This week, the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) released new guidance for the scale up of a full-fledged and critically needed carbon management industry, inclusive of both point source, direct air capture (DAC), and associated carbon dioxide transport and storage. This is a great indication from the White House that it’s prepared to do the work of enabling a carbon management sector that considers not only emissions reductions, but also impacts on communities, workers, and local economies.  

Building on its June 2021 Report, CEQ’s guidance affirms that carbon management technologies are effective and ready for deployment, as well as required to help the U.S. meet its net-zero emissions targets outlined in the Nationally Determined Contribution. Beyond the direct emissions-reduction benefit, the guidance also outlines the benefits of carbon management technologies to communities, workers, and local economy.  

It states, “CCUS (carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration) deployment can and should reduce emissions of other kinds of pollution in addition to carbon pollution, protect communities from increases in cumulative pollution, and maintain and create good, union-friendly jobs across the country.”  

The rest of the report is spent detailing how to reach this goal in an efficient, orderly, and responsible manner. The following broad themes that appear throughout the guidance:  

• The need for community engagement, community engagement, and more community engagement early, often, and always at every step of the development and deployment process. In every nook and cranny of the report, a form of the following sentence is used: “Responsible CCUS projects should engage communities and Tribes in co-development of projects and approaches; protect communities from pollution; and incorporate environmental justice and equity considerations, especially in communities that are already exposed to multiple pollution sources.” It will be especially critical to provide “information about the impacts, costs and benefits of CCUS in advance of Tribal consultation and stakeholder engagement.” 
• The need for streamlining and intra as well as inter-agency coordination on all aspects of CCUS development and deployment. CEQ’s recommendations for the development of programmatic environmental impact statements (PEISs) as well as inter-agency CCUS project recommended performance schedules and coordination of underground storage permitting and siting, monitoring and verification on federal lands and other lands is vital for to realize the ‘efficient’ and ‘orderly’ deployment of carbon management technologies. In addition, the report recommends DOE, EPA, DOT, and the National Science Foundation work together on the front-end RDD&D side of CCUS development as well.  
• The need for transparency in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reporting. CEQ rightly recognizes that a key component of ‘responsibly’ developing carbon management technologies is building public trust. This involves enhanced reporting under the GHG Reporting Program and a National inter-agency coordination for underground storage monitoring, reporting and verification. Moreover, transparency also extends to life-cycle analyses for DAC as well as the establishment of standards or certification for carbon utilization products.  
• The need for development of safety protocols and worst-case scenarios. Safety monitoring, updated regulations, protocols for enforcement and financial risk are all vitally responsible elements for developing carbon capture technology well.  
• The need for understanding all the environmental impacts of carbon management tech. This includes an assessment of the complete environmental footprint of carbon capture equipment: how it affects air quality, underground storage, etc.   

CEQ’s guidance underscores that the current administration understands how critical it is to get carbon management technologies deployed and deployed right, i.e., efficiently, orderly, and responsibly. Their commitment to ensuring positive community impacts is necessary and laudable, as is their adherence to the pathway laid out by the world’s foremost climate modelers — who unanimously affirm the need for carbon management at scale to ward off the worst impacts of climate change. In summary, the agencies of the Executive branch would do well to follow the guidance laid out for them by CEQ to advance carbon management. 

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Emily Kent

Last week, Clean Air Task Force (CATF) provided testimony at a Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources hearing on clean hydrogen – the first hearing the Committee has held on that topic since 2006. CATF’s Jonathan Lewis, Senior Counsel and Director of Transportation Decarbonization, testified on the importance of hydrogen to global decarbonization efforts on behalf of Mike Fowler, Director of Advanced Energy Technology Research. 

CATF’s remarks were centered on the need for low-carbon hydrogen as part of the solution set for climate change. The testimony from CATF covered how hydrogen—a versatile and carbon-free energy carrier—can help meet the challenge of fully decarbonizing the U.S. economy by midcentury; which sectors are likely to require hydrogen to decarbonize; and what types of research, development, demonstration, and deployment programs for hydrogen will help the United States meet its ambitious climate goals.  

CATF outlined what is needed to ensure that new hydrogen production is clean, particularly that hydrogen produced with natural gas must have extremely low methane leak rates in the natural gas supply chain and very high rates of carbon capture, and hydrogen produced with an electrolyzer must use electricity that is both clean and additional to existing and planned zero-carbon electricity generation. In response to a question from Senator Joe Manchin, Mr. Lewis also addressed the attributes that CATF believes are essential for creating good hubs through the Department of Energy’s Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub program (established in the 2021 bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act).  

The hearing prompted a wide-ranging and productive conversation between the members of the Committee and a panel of experts from the public and private sectors. Below are highlights of the key points that CATF shared with the Senators on clean hydrogen:  

• The climate challenge is vast and urgent and will require a monumental shift in our energy system. Achieving net-zero emissions across the energy system within several decades will require massive transitions in energy production and in a variety of end-use sectors.  
• 80% of end-use energy today is provided by fuel molecules, and we will likely always have demand for fuels. Electrification of some of those fuel end-uses (combined with a shift to zero-carbon electricity sources) is an essential decarbonization strategy. However, not all end-uses of fuel can be electrified, so we will also need zero-carbon fuels like hydrogen to reach full decarbonization. Hydrogen is a versatile, carbon-free energy carrier that can substitute for some conventional fuels, and the United States and other countries already have considerable industrial experience making and using hydrogen. 

• Hydrogen provides a climate opportunity. In the United States, hydrogen provides an enormous opportunity for decarbonization in certain sectors and could contribute to reducing CO2 emissions by a billion metric tons per year or more. Hydrogen could be essential in decarbonizing heavy transportation (such as heavy-duty trucking, marine shipping, and aviation) and heavy industry (for example in combustion of fuels for process heating and in ironmaking). Hydrogen might also have a key role to play in the power sector as a load balancer to help enable an electricity grid powered in large part by wind- and solar-based generation, because hydrogen can be produced from intermittent renewable energy sources when supply exceeds energy demand and stored to be used when demand exceeds zero-carbon energy supply. 
• Federal funding for research, development, demonstration, and deployment will be invaluable in building out the clean hydrogen economy. The road to decarbonization with hydrogen is not entirely clear today. Demand for clean hydrogen is projected to grow due to net-zero goals, and demand in the U.S. could be 10 quadrillion Btu or more by midcentury from the sectors mentioned above. But federal R&D and demonstration programs – like the hydrogen hub program – will need to play a key role in building scale, industry learning, and seeding growth. Deployment support for hydrogen with low greenhouse gas intensity – likely in the form of production tax credits or other incentives – will also be needed. 

To play a part in meeting decarbonization goals, hydrogen production will have to be clean. If it is produced using best practices for minimizing greenhouse gas intensity (which are evolving and improving over time), hydrogen can serve as a low- or zero-carbon fuel source to aid in our clean energy transition. Policies that support clean hydrogen, with a focus on the climate, environmental, and community impacts of hydrogen’s production and use, will also play an essential role in building out the low-carbon hydrogen economy that is needed to decarbonize “hard-to-electrify” sectors. CATF looks forward to continued engagement with the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and other stakeholders on clean hydrogen.  

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

WASHINGTON — Two Clean Air Task Force (CATF) experts will testify this week at separate Senate hearings on the importance of advancing a full suite of carbon-free technologies to decarbonize the global economy.  

On Wednesday, February 9th, at 10:00 am ET, CATF Executive Director Armond Cohen will provide testimony on the importance of nuclear energy as a carbon-free energy source at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Legislative Hearing to examine S. 2373, the American Nuclear Infrastructure Act of 2021, and S. 1290, the STRANDED Act of 2021. Learn more about the hearing and access livestream details here. 

On Thursday, February 10th, at 10:00 am ET, Mike Fowler, Director, Advanced Energy Technology Research at CATF will provide testimony on the importance of hydrogen to global decarbonization efforts at a Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Full Committee Hearing on Clean Hydrogen. Learn more about the hearing and access livestream details here. 

Press Contact: Troy Shaheen, Communications Director, U.S., [email protected], 845-750-1189 

About Clean Air Task Force 
Clean Air Task Force (CATF) is a non-profit organization working to safeguard against the worst impacts of climate change by catalyzing the rapid global development and deployment of low-carbon energy and other climate-protecting technologies. We work towards these objectives through research and analysis, public advocacy leadership, and partnership with the private sector. With nearly 25 years of nationally and internationally recognized expertise on clean air policy and regulations and a fierce commitment to fully exploring all potential solutions. CATF is headquartered in Boston, with staff working virtually around the U.S. and abroad. 

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Sarah Smith

Most of us are not familiar with the Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica, but we will have to live with its impact on our environment, especially those of us who live in low-lying coastal areas.

The Florida-sized glacier, dubbed the “doomsday” glacier due to its massive size, is on the brink of sliding into the ocean due to newly discovered cracking on the ice shelf that is keeping it in place. Scientists say climate-induced rapid melting of the ice shelf could cause the shelf to collapse in as little as three to five years, and it has enough ice in it to raise sea levels by two feet. The ice sheet is currently acting as a roadblock, impeding the massive glacier from sliding into the sea. Once the ice sheet collapses, the glacier will flow into the ocean much more rapidly – speeding up sea level rise globally. We don’t know how rapidly the glacier itself will melt, but with sea level rise already impacting communities around the world, this acceleration is very bad news.

This is not an isolated impact of climate change in the polar regions. According to NOAA’s 2021 Arctic Report Card, the last 15 years have had the lowest recorded extent of sea ice. And glaciers around the world are being destabilized or simply melted by a warming climate.

Fortunately, we can take quick action now to stop the pollution that is causing much of the melting in the first place. How? By cutting methane emissions.

Methane is a harmful super pollutant that warms the planet more than 80 times more than carbon dioxide over its first 20 years in the atmosphere. It’s responsible for about half a degree of warming so far, and its levels are rising fast – the atmospheric growth rate in 2021 was the fastest in years. Due to its short-lived nature, however, there are significant short-term benefits to cutting methane emissions now. In fact, reducing methane pollution is the fastest way to slow global warming and avoid near-term and irreversible impacts such as collapsing glaciers.

Methane pollution comes from human activities in three broad sectors: fossil fuels, agriculture, and waste. And we have solutions available in all three. Affordable, currently available technologies could stop nearly half of these emissions this decade, enough to avoid 0.3 °C of warming by the 2040s.

In the case of fossil fuels, we can substantially reduce methane emissions by regularly inspecting oil and gas infrastructure for leaks and super-emitters, eliminating wasteful venting and flaring of gas, and updating outdated equipment at oil and gas facilities that emits methane by design. In the case of agriculture, we can curb emissions with better livestock and manure management practices throughout global meat and dairy production. Waste emissions, such as those from landfills, can be cut by requiring landfills to strictly control releases of methane-rich landfill gas, and by diverting food waste (the source of much of the methane) away from landfills.

Governments are beginning to put these solutions into place – both at the U.S. state and federal level, and around the world.

Just last month, air regulators in Colorado adopted a sweeping set of rules to slash methane pollution from oil and gas producers, which emit about 60% of the state’s methane emissions. It is a key part of the state’s greenhouse gas reduction roadmap, which calls for cutting the sector’s emissions by 30% by 2025 and 60% by 2030. To meet that 2030 goal, the industry must reduce its methane emissions by 140,000 tons a year. CATF has worked closely with local groups for many years to get these rules in place, and CATF experts were key witnesses in last month’s hearings.

U.S. national methane limits are also in the pipeline. In November, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced its most protective standards yet to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, including from older legacy sites nationwide. The U.S. Department of Agriculture also unveiled a raft of abatement programs for farmers and meat producers, including loans and grants for manure digesters and other manure management improvements.

The programs are part of President Biden’s broader national strategy to reduce methane emissions by at least 30% by 2030. The U.S. is one of more than 100 countries that made such a commitment under the Global Methane Pledge, announced at COP26 in Glasgow. The EU, Canada, Germany, Brazil, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria have also signed on.

Clean Air Task Force is working to build on this momentum in several ways. We are working with more than a dozen countries participating in the Global Methane Pledge to turn ambition into action, helping them design regulations and other programs to change practices on the ground and reduce methane pollution. We’re also working to help scale up technical and policy support, as well as mitigation financing, in developing countries.

It is especially inspiring to see Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country and one of the world’s largest oil and gas producers, join this important global effort. CATF and Carbon Limits Nigeria have been working together with Nigeria’s government in recent years to pinpoint the country’s largest methane sources and develop strategies to reduce them.

Nigeria has already reduced natural gas flaring by roughly 70% since 2000 and last month it pledged — as part of its updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) at COP26 — to slash overall methane emissions by 60% by 2031.

These efforts are critical first steps, but we need broader, more ambitious actions to achieve the necessary pace and scale of methane reductions.

Failing to do so will make calamitous climate tipping points such as the Thwaites glacier’s collapse increasingly likely.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

BRUSSELS – A little over a year since announcing its pioneering Methane Strategy, the European Commission has today released its legislative proposal to cut methane pollution in the EU. Specifically, this proposal tackles methane in the energy sector, an area that offers the quickest and easiest routes to reducing methane emissions. This ‘Methane Regulation’ focuses on cutting methane emissions from the gas, oil, and coal sectors. Clean Air Task Force welcomes the progress made by this proposal as EU-wide action on methane pollution is sorely needed.

“After more than a year and a half of meetings, proposals and comments, today’s legislative proposal is a welcome step forward to cut methane in the EU,” said Jonathan Banks, CATF’s International Director, Methane. “Today’s legislation makes strong progress on domestic methane emissions, but more is still needed to cut methane emissions from imported gas, something we will be emphasizing as the legislative process moves forward.”

The EU imports over 80% of its fossil gas and 90% of its oil. Therefore, the EU’s methane pollution problem extends beyond the borders of the EU. The Commission’s proposal includes measures on transparency and visibility on methane emissions from imports and leaves open the possibility for future action to cut methane from imports. However, the importance of methane emissions from imported oil and gas is something that should be fully addressed in this legislation.

The EU has been instrumental in driving international action on methane through the recent Global Methane Pledge, spearheaded by the EU and the US, with more than 100 countries committed to reduce their methane emissions by 30% by 2030. But the EU needs to keep the pressure on and match their international ambition to the ambition in its legislative proposals. With strong imports standards, the EU can drive further changes internationally and, consequently, send a clear signal to its trade partners.

Adding requirement on methane reduction from imports will be needed to ensure that the EU legislation is ambitious enough to serve as an example to the many states around the globe currently drafting their own policy on methane.

“We’re hoping that the European Parliament will use this initial proposal as a jumping off point for a more ambitious piece of legislation that takes into account the entire oil and gas supply chain,” said Alessia Virone, CATF’s EU Affairs Manager. “Methane pollution isn’t an issue that allows for slow and steady progress. Cutting methane is the only climate action we can take right now that will significantly slow down global warming in the next two decades.”

The proposed Methane Regulation includes four key domestic measures for the oil and gas sectors that, together, should efficiently reduce domestic methane emissions in the EU:

• Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV): Methane emissions inventories have so far been the object of demonstrated low bias: global anthropogenic fossil methane emissions are up to 40% higher than reported. The proposal includes mandatory reporting of source-level methane emissions estimated and, within two years, measurements of site-level methane emissions. It also establishes a verification system.
• Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR): Methane leaks are widespread in the oil and gas industry, as illustrated by the #CutMethaneEU campaign. The Commission’s proposal includes all the main requirements for efficient LDAR: mandatory LDAR every 3 months, with clear deadlines for repair and resurvey, and up-to-date technology requirements open to future innovation. To strengthen the proposal, LDAR could be made monthly instead of quarterly.
• Ban on routine venting and flaring: Natural gas flaring (controlled combustion of natural gas) and venting (direct release of natural gas into the atmosphere) have devastating environmental and health impact. It also represents an economic loss for companies, as the gas vented or flared could have otherwise been available for productive use. While the European Methane Strategy only mentioned that the Commission would consider a ban on venting and flaring, CATF is happy to see that the proposal explicitly bans venting and routine flaring, with a list of specific exceptions that are primarily driven by well-defined safety concerns.
• Abandoned and Unused Oil and Gas Wells: Europe counts many abandoned and unused wells which were improperly closed and continue to emit methane. For some of these wells, no owner can be identified and held accountable. CATF welcomes the inclusion of monitoring and reporting obligations for these wells as well as the obligation for Member States to implement a mitigation plan to remediate, reclaim and permanently plug their inactive wells.

The energy sector is the second largest emitter of methane, after agriculture, but deserves particular attention as the International Energy Agency estimates that 75% of its emissions can be mitigated using existing technology and at marginal cost. That makes it the lowest hanging fruit in climate policy.

Limiting global warming to 1.5 °C requires rapid and sustained reductions of emissions from methane and other non-CO2 short-lived climate pollutants, along with rapid and sustained reductions in CO2 emissions. This was the conclusion of the IPCC’s special report onGlobal Warming of 1.5 °C. It also is the conclusion of UNEP & Climate & Clean Air Coalition’s Global Methane Assessment. The science is incredibly clear that methane reductions are a crucial and pressing piece of the climate effort.

Press Contact

Rowan Emslie, Communications Director, EU, [email protected], +32 476-97-36-42

About Clean Air Task Force

Clean Air Task Force (CATF) is a non-profit organization working to safeguard against the worst impacts of climate change by catalyzing the rapid global development and deployment of low-carbon energy and other climate-protecting technologies. We work towards these objectives through research and analysis, public advocacy leadership, and partnership with the private sector. With nearly 25 years of nationally and internationally recognized expertise on clean air policy and regulations and a fierce commitment to fully exploring all potential solutions, CATF is an environmental advocacy group with the bold ideas needed today to solve the climate crisis.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

Carbon capture and storage technologies are essential tools to reduce industrial carbon dioxide emissions and will play a pivotal role in decarbonizing the global economy. For carbon capture to be effective, storage of the captured emissions must be permanent. Geologic storage of captured carbon dioxide provides a means to permanently store captured carbon dioxide deep underground.

Carbon capture is rapidly gaining momentum in Europe, with more than 50 proposed carbon capture projects already announced. This momentum has spurred questions about geologic storage options and the relative permanence of sequestered carbon dioxide. In this blog, we will answer frequently asked questions to illustrate how geologic storage does indeed provide long-term, low-risk, and permanent reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. When done correctly, it is extremely unlikely that injection of carbon dioxide into deep geologic formations will ever reach the atmosphere in significant quantities or pose a risk to public health.

Why store carbon dioxide deep underground?

Geologic storage of captured carbon dioxide can help facilitate the transition to net-zero by permanently storing significant emissions from existing assets in hard-to-abate sectors. Heavy industry accounts for ~20% of total emissions in the EU and there are few to no options for abating these emissions other than carbon capture. Important industries like chemical production, cement, and steel must be future-proofed for a carbon-neutral world and carbon capture can provide a proven, scalable solution for addressing greenhouse gas emissions from these industries. For carbon capture to be effective, the captured carbon must be permanently stored or utilized. While there are ways to utilize captured carbon emissions by transforming them into products, these technologies are mostly experimental and not yet proven at the scale required for deep decarbonization. Geologic storage of carbon dioxide has been safely and effectively implemented at scale for nearly 50 years and according to the EIA’s Net Zero by 2050 report, around 95% of captured carbon will need to be stored permanently via geologic storage.

How much carbon dioxide can be stored in Europe?

In terms of geologic storage availability, Europe is well positioned to deploy large-scale geologic storage to help deliver on climate goals. Significant geologic storage resources exist in Europe across multiple sedimentary basins and storage fairways. According to the EU Geological CO2 Storage Summary report by the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS) using the CO2StoP dataset, the total saline storage capacity of prospective geologic units in Europe is estimated to be 482 gigatonnes (Gt), which equates to over 300 years’ worth of EU emissions from stationary sources at current rates. This estimate was derived from 28 countries in which sufficient geologic data was available. The map below shows the location of storage areas and associated storage capacities for all the storage units in Europe that were considered for this estimate (Figure 1). A more detailed summary of EU geologic storage resources can be found in this CATF blog.

Figure 1: Location of storage areas and associated capacities across Europe. Source: GEUS, 2021

As geologic storage resources are unequally distributed across Europe, not all countries will be able to store their carbon dioxide within their own borders. Consequently, carbon dioxide storage will require cross-border cooperation and coordination. It is unlikely that geologic storage clusters will be developed in every country. Depending on their saline geologic storage resources, some countries will store carbon dioxide from other countries.

Europe is fortunate to have significant geologic resources for storing carbon dioxide, and next we will discuss how the geologic storage of carbon dioxide works.

How does geologic storage of carbon dioxide work?

Geologic storage of carbon dioxide involves the injection of captured carbon dioxide into deep, porous rock reservoirs that are overlain by sealing rock layers (i.e, caprocks). This prevents the carbon dioxide from getting into the atmosphere and permanently stores it in the subsurface.

In its simplest form, carbon dioxide is injected into a porous rock capped by an impermeable rock, trapping it in place. To achieve the most efficient use of space, captured carbon dioxide is compressed and made denser which reduces the volume of the carbon dioxide and therefore occupies less space in the rock when injected. Prior to starting injection operations, geologists must locate suitable geologic formations capable of safely and efficiently storing carbon dioxide. The following characteristics are that of an ideal storage reservoir system:

• Presence of a suitable reservoir rock formation that is very porous, like a sponge, that can host the injected carbon dioxide
• Reservoir rock with sufficiently interconnected pore space, known as permeability, that allows for carbon dioxide to easily flow into and through the reservoir
• An impermeable “caprock” that overlies the reservoir which acts as a barrier to fluid flow, containing the injected carbon dioxide within the underlying reservoir
• A reservoir that is of sufficient depth, typically ~800m, such that the natural temperature and pressure conditions of the reservoir can keep the injected carbon dioxide dense and in place
• A reservoir system that has excellent mechanical integrity and is free of major faults that carbon dioxide could leak through

The most ideal candidate storage options for large volumes of carbon dioxide are deep saline formations, which refers to any deep rock formations that are filled with non-potable, highly saline (i.e., “salty”) water. Depleted oil and gas fields that are no longer economic for production can also be ideal storage reservoirs provided they have an established caprock. Saline aquifers that are suitable for geologic storage are very deep in the subsurface and are separated from the surface by hundreds to thousands of meters of solid rock formations. Figure 2 illustrates the subsurface scale of a typical saline storage project.

Figure 2: Schematic of a saline storage project with heights of commonly known buildings for reference. Source: EPA

To find subsurface options for storing large volumes of carbon dioxide, scientists must perform reconnaissance work in the form of feasibility studies to collect subsurface geologic data and identify areas that have potential to host suitable geologic formations. For most storage projects, this includes collecting and analyzing geophysical and geochemical data from existing wells, creating 3D models of the subsurface geology and performing injection simulations, drilling a characterization well to collect new geophysical data and rock core samples to confirm the presence of a reservoir, and running geophysical surveys to confirm that the geologic formations are present across the whole study area. Once a potential injection site has been determined to be feasible for injecting carbon dioxide, then the injection facility can be built, and injection operations can commence.

Carbon dioxide storage operations follow very strict engineering and safety protocols to ensure safe and efficient storage. A more detailed explanation of this is provided in the next section.

Is geologic storage safe?

While carbon dioxide is a pollutant in the atmosphere and in drinking water, it is not a pollutant in the deep subsurface where it commonly already exists naturally. Carbon dioxide can be stored in the deep subsurface safely and efficiently by following strict engineering and safety protocols with extremely limited risk of carbon dioxide leaking back into the atmosphere or into shallow drinking water aquifers. Significant volumes of carbon dioxide are already safely being stored in deep geologic formations around the world.

There are more than 20 commercial-scale carbon capture facilities operating globally, permanently capturing and storing around 40 Mt of carbon dioxide annually which is equivalent to the annual emissions from over 8 million passenger cars. The safety and permanence of geologic storage is realized through proper site selection and engineering protocols. Rigorous subsurface geologic modeling and simulation is performed prior to injection to demonstrate that the geologic formations can handle the injected carbon dioxide and that the injected carbon dioxide will stay in place.

Injection wells are engineered to extremely high standards to prevent any leakage of the injected carbon dioxide. Injection well operators are required to not exceed a determined pressure that would cause the rock to fracture, ensuring that the mechanical integrity of the geologic formations is preserved. During carbon dioxide injection operations, the injected carbon dioxide plume is monitored closely using sophisticated geophysical and geochemical monitoring techniques to track the location and size of the plume throughout the entire project. This monitoring ensures that the plume is not traveling anywhere that it shouldn’t, such as near faults. After injection ceases, the plume continues to be monitored to ensure that it has stabilized, and it is not migrating. Once an operator can demonstrate that the plume has stabilized, the injection well is plugged to prevent any carbon dioxide migration up the open hole.

The rigorous engineering and design process summarized above are routine measures taken at every carbon dioxide storage project to ensure the safety, efficiency, and longevity of geologic storage. The technology and methods for injecting, storing, and monitoring carbon dioxide underground are mature and have been practiced since 1972. Multiple commercial scale carbon dioxide storage projects around the world have successfully demonstrated that carbon dioxide can be safely stored in geologic formations. These storage projects undergo rigorous risk and mitigation planning so that in the event of a carbon dioxide leak, injection ceases immediately and appropriate mitigation techniques are applied to identify the leakage mechanism and remedy it. In 2005, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a report about the limited risk of carbon dioxide leakage associated with geologic storage.

Regulations in the EU also exist to ensure that sites are adequately monitored for safety. The European Commission’s CCS Directive is the main legislative package that details how carbon dioxide storage can be done in the EU. It provides strict rules to ensure that carbon dioxide storage sites are strictly monitored on a regular basis. Under Article 13 of the CCS Directive, Member States must ensure that storage sites are monitored, while Article 14 outlines that storage operators must report to the competent authorities at least once per year, how well the storage site is operating. Furthermore, Article 15 provides that Member States shall ensure that storage sites are subject to frequent inspections.

Despite the overwhelming data that demonstrates the safety of geologic storage, concerns remain. A common concern is the risk of human-induced earthquakes. When fluids are injected into rock at a pressure that exceed the strength of the rock, such as in shale gas exploration, small cracks may form. This process, commonly known as “fracking,” occasionally results in microseismicity- mini temblors measurable only by extremely sensitive instruments, at levels rarely noticed by humans. However, unlike in gas exploration, geologic storage practices are designed to avoid fracturing. This is because microfractures reduce rather than enhance the volumes of carbon dioxide that can be stored in the reservoir rock.

As mentioned above, operators of geologic storage projects continuously monitor reservoir and injection pressures and are required to keep pressures below that which would fracture the rock. The Illinois Basin Decatur Project in the United States successfully injected over 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into a deep saline reservoir and performed an extensive microseismic monitoring study during injection. The results of the seismic monitoring showed that minimal microseismic events occurred that were far smaller than what would be required to potentially compromise the caprock or be felt by humans at the surface.

Proper engineering design and controls ensure that geologic storage can be performed safely and various storage projects around the world have demonstrated this in practice. Next, we will get into how carbon dioxide is actually trapped and securely stored in geologic formations.

How is injected carbon dioxide trapped and how long can injected carbon dioxide remain securely stored?

Ancient fluids like brine and hydrocarbons, as well as carbon dioxide, occur naturally in subsurface geologic formations and have been trapped in the subsurface, in some cases, for hundreds of millions of years. These ancient, naturally occurring fluids provide a valid analog for the ability of subsurface geologic reservoirs to securely retain carbon dioxide over geologic timescales. The oil and gas that we extract from geologic formations has been trapped for millions of years in the subsurface and would remain there for millions of years in the future if we were not actively extracting them.

So how is carbon dioxide trapped? Let’s continue to use hydrocarbons as an analog. Like carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons are less dense than water and thus have migrated buoyantly upward through rocks and fractures over geologic time following their generation until they encountered a geologic “trap.” Simply put, a geologic trap consists of an overlying impermeable rock, which we refer to as a caprock or seal, with an underlying porous rock formation that acts as a reservoir for fluids. Geologic traps can occur in the form of geologic structures like anticlines, which are dome-like structures, faults that have been sealed by mineralization, and stratigraphic traps (Figure 3). In all cases, geologic traps are capable of “trapping” buoyant fluids, preventing them from migrating upward, where they can remain in the subsurface over geologic timescales. When prospecting for oil and gas plays, geologists look to identify areas in the subsurface where geologic traps exist that have accumulated hydrocarbons over time.

Figure 3: Diagram illustrating the different types of geologic traps that exist in the subsurface. Source: University of Calgary

Similarly, when planning a carbon dioxide storage project, a geologist carefully “prospects” for geologic traps that, instead of trapping hydrocarbons, would be capable of structurally trapping injected carbon dioxide.

While structural trapping, as outlined above, is the most dominant trapping mechanism, other trapping mechanisms also occur in geologic formations that provide further security (Figure 4). These mechanisms include solution trapping, residual trapping, and mineral trapping. When injecting into saline aquifers, some of the injected carbon dioxide will slowly dissolve into the brine that exists in the pore space of the rock and becomes permanently trapped via solution trapping. Some portion of the injected carbon dioxide will become trapped in small pore spaces as residual carbon dioxide that is immobile, similar to water in a sponge that is leftover after wringing. This mechanism is referred to as residual trapping. The final mechanism for carbon dioxide trapping occurs when dissolved carbon dioxide reacts with the reservoir rock to form a new mineral, which is called mineral trapping. This mechanism of trapping effectively traps the carbon dioxide permanently in the form of a solid mineral.

Figure 4: Plot illustrating the relative contribution of each trapping mechanism as a function of time following the cessation of injection. Source: IPCC, 2005

When using naturally occurring hydrocarbon deposits as an analog, carbon dioxide, when properly injected into geologic traps, can remain stored in the subsurface for much longer than modern civilization has existed on this planet (i.e., millions of years).

Can faults and fractures allow injected carbon dioxide to migrate to the surface?

Faulting and fracturing may pose a risk to stored carbon dioxide if they provide a route around traps to the surface. In older rocks, however, existing faults and fractures can be filled in with minerals, or mineralized, such that they actually provide excellent traps where impermeable formations have been tectonically juxtaposed against permeable ones. So, where a fault crops up in a geologic review in preparation for a storage project, it is important to determine what type of a fault it is. Robust regulations requiring such detailed geologic study is essential to identify any such features, and to determine whether they are transmissive or impermeable under expected injection conditions.

If permeability is likely, or if there is nearby earthquake risk, a site may not – and should not – qualify for a storage permit. Regulations provide these protections, requiring identification and monitoring of any potentially transmissive faults and fractures. We will discuss how the safe storage of carbon dioxide is regulated in Europe in the next section.

How is the safe storage of carbon dioxide regulated in Europe?

To ensure good governance, with clear rules and responsibilities for the safe storage of carbon dioxide, while ensuring the removal of legal barriers, a strong legal framework is necessary. Fortunately, a legal framework for the safe geological storage of carbon dioxide already exists in Europe. In 2009, the European Union adopted the Carbon Capture and Storage Directive (CCS Directive) as part of the 2009 climate and energy package. The CCS Directive provides a legal framework to ensure the environmentally safe geologic storage of carbon dioxideand creates the necessary legal certainty for investors to construct large-scale carbon dioxide storage sites (including capture and transportation). As described in the 2019 European Commission Report on Implementation of the CCS Directive, this framework aims to ensure that, for any given geologic storage project; 1) there is no significant risk of leakage of carbon dioxide from the geologic reservoir, 2) there is no significant risk of damage to public health or the environment, and 3) there are no adverse effects on the security of the transport network or storage sites. The CCS Directive focuses mostly on the selection of sites for carbon dioxide storage as well as on monitoring, permitting, closure and post-closure obligations. The CCS Directive has been transposed into national law by all EU and EEA Member States, albeit to different extents. Some Member States have directly transposed it into their national legislation and others, like Germany and the Netherlands, have implemented additional and stricter measures.

Who decides where carbon dioxide is to be stored?

Although the CCS Directive provides for a legal framework for the capture, transport and storage of carbon dioxide in the EU and EEA, it is for the Member States to decide how this is to be done.

Article 4 of the CCS Directive makes clear it is for the Member States to decide whether the storage of carbon dioxide is permitted in parts or in the whole of their territory. This will be based on assessments which deem certain areas suitable for the storage of carbon dioxide, such as the EU Geological carbon dioxide Storage Summary report as described above. Under Articles 5 and 6, if an area is deemed suitable for storage, Member States may then permit certain plots for exploration and storage, giving the holder exclusive rights to explore and store carbon dioxide in those designated areas. Article 7 provides strict rules as to how these permits are to be licensed to storage operators, including demonstration of technical expertise and ability to meet the financial requirements which are outlined in more detail in the following sections. Ultimately, it is the competent authority – usually a Ministry for the Environment or Climate – which decides who may explore and store carbon dioxide in a particular area of land and what the terms of those permits are.

Who is liable for possible leakage of carbon dioxide from storage sites?

In the case of potential leakage of carbon dioxide from a storage site, clear rules regarding the liability for breaching carbon dioxide storage regulations as well as potential environmental and climate damages are needed. The CCS Directive, as well as the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) and Emissions Trading Directive (ETS Directive) provides for three types of liability: liability for corrective measures, liability for environmental damage, and liability for climate damage arising from leakage.

Article 16 of the CCS Directive outlines these forms of liability. The operator must take corrective measures in case of leakages and significant irregularities. Similarly, the operator must take preventive action or remedial action under the ELD where there is an imminent threat or actual environmental damage. Furthermore, emissions trading allowances have to be surrendered in accordance with the ETS Directive for any leaked carbon dioxide.

While storage operators must comply with the rules under the CCS Directive and are liable for carbon dioxide leakages at storage sites in operation, these responsibilities eventually transfer to the State after the storage site has closed and a certain amount of time has elapsed. Article 18 of the CCS Directive provides that these liabilities are transferred to the State after a minimum of 20 years have elapsed since the closure of the storage site. This transfer of responsibility has strict requirements, in particular, that all available evidence indicates that the stored carbon dioxide will be completely and permanently contained. In addition, storage operators must also provide a financial contribution, to be used for monitoring and any other expense arising from the maintenance of the storage site, which is provided for under Article 20.

In sum, the inherent characteristics of rock formation and carbon storage analogs, accompanied by regulatory requirements for planning, injecting, storing and monitoring injected carbon dioxide, strongly suggest that well-sited geologic storage is low risk for the long-term, and is permanent. Project leakage will be a rare exception and limited in magnitude due to what we know about the physics of geologic trapping of injected carbon dioxide, decades of experience with injection of carbon dioxide and other analogs, and existing regulatory requirements for selecting and operating carbon dioxide injection and storage sites, including requirements for injection well construction and mechanical integrity. This is the permanence needed to meet carbon dioxide reduction goals that geologic storage provides offers for captured carbon dioxide emissions.

The post Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide in Europe: FAQ appeared first on Clean Air Task Force.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here

In 2021, Clean Air Task Force has inspected more than 250 oil and gas facilities in 11 countries with a special infrared camera designed to detect methane emissions. This report provides an overview of all our findings. In total, we documented a shocking 433 methane emitting sources across Europe’s oil and gas network. Our new EU methane report has all the details.

After many years of slipping under the radar, the crisis of methane pollution is finally becoming a climate priority. Recent studies by the International Energy Agency (IEA), the United Nations Environment Programme, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have highlighted the impact of methane pollution and the need to drastically reduce energy-related methane emissions by the end of this decade to keep international climate goals in reach. Most recently at COP26, more than 100 countries publicly committed to reducing global methane emissions by 2030.

“Cutting methane emissions is the best way to substantially reduce warming in the next two decades,” said Jonathan Banks, CATF’s International Director, Super Pollutants. “The quickest, easiest and cheapest way to make headway is by cleaning up the oil and gas sector. It’s not rocket science; it’s basically just plumbing.” 

Methane pollution predominantly comes from three sectors – energy, waste and agriculture. While all three will need intervention, targeting cuts in the energy sector is rapidly rising up the policy agenda. That is because the majority of currently available solutions could be implemented easily and at a low cost. The IEA estimates fossil fuel operators could achieve 75% reductions with existing technologies, and 40% of those would come at zero net cost. This is the low hanging fruit of climate policy.

In 2020, the European Union began a multi-year process to develop legislation aimed at reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas industry and other sectors by announcing its Methane Strategy. Currently, there is no EU-wide policy to reduce methane emissions and many member states lack detailed domestic legislation. Limited regulatory standards and lack of coordination results in a lack of consistency in operational practices to address venting, flaring, and fugitive emissions across member states.

In this new report, CATF outlines our observations of methane pollution from oil and gas infrastructure within the EU. This report is based on trips to over 250 oil and gas sites spread across 11 member states between February and September 2021, utilizing special optical gas imaging technology that allows us to make invisible methane pollution visible. This is the first multi-country survey of oil and gas facilities in Europe, and the takeaway is clear: methane pollution is widespread.

This is a problem across the entire oil and gas value chain: from upstream, to transportation and storage, up to the point of distribution to the consumers. Our documentation shows emissions at every stage, including in areas near population centres. In total, we observed 433 sources of emissions. The emissions we observed predominantly came from storage tanks, emergency relief stacks, unlit flares, and other miscellaneous leaks from piping equipment. We also observed various types of failures resulting in methane pollution directly from the wellhead in three oil and gas producing countries (Austria, the Netherlands, and Romania), with Romania illustrating a significant problem.

“Everywhere we point this camera, we find evidence of methane pollution – it doesn’t matter which country or which part of the oil and gas network it is,” said James Turitto, CATF’s Campaign Manager, Super Pollutants. “When we first started raising this issue in Europe, we were repeatedly told that this was not a problem here. Nobody can reasonably claim that now.”

While several of the oil and gas operators that own these assets are part of Oil and Gas Methane Partnership and/or have made commitments to address methane pollution, rhetoric does not always match action on the ground. Currently, companies can self-report methane emissions, but there is no clear legal obligation to reduce emissions. EU oil and gas companies often deflect responsibility by raising the issue of methane emissions from global oil and gas producers and exporters. While methane released from oil and gas imported by Europe is a major problem, and one that must be addressed by a strong import standard, the industry will not address problems within the EU at anywhere near the scale that is necessary if there is no policy framework to compel them, nor can the EU impose standards on imported fuels if it fails to impose domestic measures.

We are in a race to pass smart policy, push companies to implement it, and build regulatory institutions that can enforce the rules.

• Upcoming EU legislation must set up a comprehensive Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) program – which would take little time to implement and would be extremely cost-effective. Strict deadlines to enact this program will be crucial to ensure accountability and quick action. The EU must also set up and implement a robust and accurate system for monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) of methane emissions.
• The prevalence of venting shows the need to implement a ban on routine venting and flaring, with very limited exceptions – only for safety reasons, emergencies, or circumstances where capture for sale and reinjection would not be technically possible or extraordinarily costly. This is an urgent measure that would drastically reduce emissions and improve air quality.
• In addition, the EU should establish a separate program on methane mitigation for abandoned oil and gas wells to ensure they are found, properly plugged, and remediated.  Such a program could lead to substantial reductions in methane emissions from abandoned wells as well as employment opportunities.

The forthcoming EU Methane Legislation represents a major opportunity to set the world on a path towards deep and rapid methane reductions. The evidence collected within the EU in 2020 only add more impetus to the policy agenda. As one of the architects of the Global Methane Pledge, comprehensive action to clean up domestic methane emissions by 2030 will be a good start and help to provide a playbook for dozens of countries around the world. The EU can become a global leader on this issue by pioneering import standards on top of those domestic measures.

[ad_2]

Originally Appeared Here